Why is Barack Obama against drug legalization?
I’m running through the issues, and I can’t find a single one on which I agree with him, other than that blacks should take more responsibility for their own lives.
That’s great but, sorry, it’s just not enough. Just another non-federalist fascist.
This comment probably explains his position:
The only black dude and admitted former drug experimenter in the race cannot afford to look soft on drugs.
Yup. New politics.
Can someone pass the Kool-Aid?
The only black dude and admitted former drug experimenter in the race cannot afford to look soft on drugs.
Right. Bill Clinton took the same position, I assume for the same reason.
One of the tenets of his church is that the US govt/ CIA create HIV and AIDS as a means to commit genocide. As President of the US, The Obamahdi will be in a position to expose this Truth™. Or kill that paranoid fantasy once and for all.
In any case, someone should ask him about it now, just so we can see the evasions.
So he steps away from one liberal position and gets bashed for it? I don’t get it. I understand the political necessities argument, but why the bashing over it?
Why the bashing?
Because Rand Simberg is a moron. That’s why.
Peggy Noonan and Charles Murray see greatness in Obama. They clearly state that they won’t vote for him, but they respect and admire him.
Simberg can only see political necessity. He is truly pathetic – an echo chamber for most of the blight at the Corner.
Because Rand Simberg is a moron.
I don’t think that you should call him a moron, and not just because it’s rude and sets a bad example. He writes well. He also has a good sense of humor — when it doesn’t involve space or politics.
I’ll agree that he is way too biased for his own good. The problem with deep bias is that the people who harbor it are ultimately very gullible, even though they typically think of themselves as skeptics. They stay loyal to bad ideas and suspect people for ages, or even forever. All of the skepticism is piled up on one side, and there is none left over for the enemy within. But I don’t mainly mean this as a critique of Rand; you see this on all sides of politics.
I’ll agree that he is way too biased for his own good.
.
Jim,
I assume you weigh Rand’s bias against your own well known free thinking and accepting attitude we see here at TtM? I can see how you’d think Rand was biased, but that you’re right. It’s some additive in the kool-aid that makes you see the world that way.
Obama has Zbignev Brezniski as an advisor.
That told me everything I needed to know about his critical thinking abilities or apparent lack thereof. The whole Wright thing just confirms it.
I assume you weigh Rand’s bias against your own well known free thinking and accepting attitude we see here at TtM?
But free thought and acceptance aren’t the opposite of bias. If you’re unbiased, that means that you trust people when you should trust them and you can change your mind when you’re probably wrong. The world is full of people who argue for “viewpoint diversity” as antidote to bias, when what they really want is affirmative action for discredited ideology. This new movie, “Expelled”, is a great example of that. The big bad establishment oppresses the scientific theory that evolution can’t explain the genes of plants and animals, because actually God designed them. We need viewpoint diversity, the movie argues, so that students can learn this valuable biological model.
I’m not in a position to measure my own bias. To the extent that I know that I am biased, I try to reform. On this site, I’ve mainly argued two things: (1) The Iraq war is a farce, and (2) people have accidentally warmed the planet. You’re free to write off both of those as “bias”, but neither one is just a pet opinion, rather these things are just true. They’re true in the same sense that the sun is much larger than the earth.
Alfred Differ posted:
“So he steps away from one liberal position and gets bashed for it? I don’t get it. I understand the political necessities argument, but why the bashing over it?”
Hmm Alfred so Rand could be said to support a “liberal position” (your words not mine) and you bash him for it?
Do you see what you did there? I’m only pointing it out to you ^_^
I’m also going to point out to you that Mike “Moronic!” Gerson didn’t see it…
Here is the full text of jeremiah Wright’s 911 sermon. Read it and judge for yourself whether he was swift-boated by FOX news. Look carefully at the sentences right after the “chickens coming home to roost” line. Observe where he ends the sermon.
Even if one finds his particular use of words offensive, the thrust of the sermon is the problem with violence. It shows how foolish it is to allow talk radio to define someone in the internet age; a time in which we can actually get our hands on the full picture, and where the Simbergs of the world do not bother themsleves with the full context, but rather repeat, like parrots, the rants they hear from the Limbaughs and Hannities of the world. So, here is the sermon:
Every public service of worship I have heard about so far in the wake of the American tragedy has had in its prayers and in its preachments, sympathy and compassion for those who were killed and for their families, and God’s guidance upon the selected Presidents and upon our war machine, as they do what they do and what they gotta do — paybacks.
There’s a move in Psalm 137 from thoughts of paying tithes to thoughts of paying back, A move, if you will from worship to war, a move in other words from the worship of th God of creation to war against those whom God Created. And I want you to notice very carefully this next move. One of the reasons this Psalm is rarely read, in its entirety, because it is a move that spotlights the insanity of the cycle of violence and the cycle of hatred.
Look at the verse; Look at the verse; Look at verse nine: [rising voice] “Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rocks.”[lower voice] The people of faith are the rivers of Babylon. How shall we sing the Lord’s song? If I forget the order … The people of faith, have moved from the hatred of armed enemies [rising voice]–these soldiers who captured the king; those soldiers who slaughtered his son, that put his eyes out; those soldiers who sacked the city, burned, burned the towns, the burned the temple, burned the towers, they have moved from the hatred of [loudest voice] armed enemies to the hatred of unarmed innocents — [low voice] the babies, the babies.
Blessed are they who dash your baby?s brains against a rock. And that, my beloved, is a dangerous place to be, yet that is where the people of faith are in the 551BC, and that is where far too many people of faith are in 2001 AD. We have moved from the hatred of armed enemies to the hatred of unarmed innocents. We want revenge, we want paybacks, and we don’t care who gets hurt in the process.
Now I asked the Lord, what should our response be in light of such an unthinkable act, but before I share with you what the Lord shared with me I want to give you one of my little faith footnotes.
Visitors, I often give little faith footnotes, so that our members don’t lose sight of the big picture, let me give you a faith footnote. Turn to your neighbor and say, “Faith footnote.” [Voices: “Faith footnote”]
[Begin faith footnote]
I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday. Did anybody else see him or hear him, he was on Fox News. This is a white man, and he was upsetting the Fox News commentators to no end. He pointed out, (Did you see him, John?) –a white man– he pointed out– an ambassador– that what Malcolm X said when he got silenced by Elijah Mohammad was in fact true, America’s chickens are coming home to roost.
We took this country, by terror, away from the Sioux, the Apache, the Arrowak (phonetic) the Comanche, the Arapajo, the Navajo. Terrorism–we took Africans from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism. We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians — babies, non-military personnel. We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with Stealth Bombers and killed unarmed teenagers, and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working father. [fullest voice] We bombed Khadafi, his home and killed his child. Blessed be they who bash your children’s head agains the rocks.
[fullest voice] We bombed Iraq, we killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed the plant in Sudan to payback for the attack on our embassy — killed hundreds of hard working people –mothers and fathers, who left home to go that day, not knowing they’d never get back home. [Even fuller voice] We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye. Kids playing in the playground, mothers picking up children after school — civilians not soldiers. People just trying to make it day by day. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and South Africa and now we are indignant? Because the stuff we have done overseas is brought back into our own front yard.
America’s chickens are coming home, to roost. Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred, and terrorism begets terrorism.
[lower voice] A White ambassador said that, y’all, not a black militant. Not a Reverend who preaches about racism, an ambassador whose eyes are wide open, and whose trying to get us to wake up, and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said that the people we have wounded don’t have the military capability we have, but they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them, and we need to come to grips with that.
Let me stop my faith footnote right there, and ask you to think about that over the next few weeks if God grants us that many days. Turn back to your neighbor, and say, “Footnote is over.” [Voices: “Footnote is over.”]
[End Faith Footnote]
[Gentle voice] Now, now. C’mon back to my question to the Lord, “What should our response be right now. In light of such an unthinkable act. I asked the Lord that question Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.
I was stuck in Newark, New Jersey. No flights were leaving La Guardia, JFK, or Newark Airport. On the day tht the FAA opened up the airports to bring into the destinations of cities those flights that had been diverted because of the hijacking, a scare in New York close all three regional airports and I couldn’t even get her for Mr. Radford’s father’s funeral. And I asked God, “What should our response be?
I saw pictures of the incredible. People jumping from the 110th floor; people jumping from the roof because the stair wells and elevators above the 89th floor were gone– no more. Black people, jumping to a certain death; people holding hands jumping; people on fire jumping. [plaintiff high voice] And I asked the Lord, “What should our response be?” I read what the people of faith felt in 551BC. But this is a different time, this is a different enemy, a different world, a different terror. This is a different reality. What should our response be, and the Lord showed me three things. Let me share them with you quickly and I’m gonna leave you alone to think about the faith footnote.
Number one: The Lord showed me that this is a time for self-examination. [cheers] As I sat 900 miles away from my family and my community of faith, two months after my own father’s death, God showed me that this was a time for me to examine my relationship with God. MY own relationship with God– personal relationship with God.
I submit to you that it is the same for you. Folk flocked to the church in New Jersey last week, you know that foxhole-religion syndrome kicked in, that emergency chord religion, you know that little red box you pull in emergency? It showed up in full force. Folk who aint thought about coming to church in years, were in church last week. I heard that mid-week prayer services all over this country which are poorly attended fifty-one week a year were jam packed all over the nation the week of the hijacking the 52nd week. [inaudible]
But the Lord said, this aint the time for you to be examining other folks relationship this is a time of self examination. But the Lord said, “How is “our” relationship doing Jeremiah? How often do you talked to me personally, how often do you let me talk to you privately? How much time do you spend trying to get right with me, or do you spend all your time trying to get other folk right?
This is a time for me to examine my own relationship with God. Is it real or is it fake? Is it forever or is it for show? Is is something that you do for the sake of the public or is it something that you do for the sake of eternity? [voice rising] This is a time for me to examine my own, and a time for you to examine your own relationship with God — self examination.
If “Rev.” Wright’s “god” was the only alternative I would be an atheist and damn proud of it.
There’s no God in “Rev.” Wright’s “god” only a “Rev.” Wright impersonation called “god”. It is a classic example of misuse of religion and his congregation aren’t christians so much as wrightians.
It’s not that this is uncommon, too many christians are like that, it’s one of many reasons I stopped thinking of myself as one (of course it applies to other religions too). However it really makes you wonder why leftists in general and other idiotarians lap this foul piss up like it was fine wine as long as it’s “black” (a racist insult to anyone black in my opinion).
So Anonymous, you are saying he really didn’t mean it when he asked God to damn America?
Doug Kmiec endorses:
http://www.slate.com//blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/03/23/endorsing-obama.aspx
Another traitor to the Republicans.
Another traitor to the Republicans
Another fool. Why would I care who Doug Kmiec endorses?
I saw pictures of the incredible. People jumping from the 110th floor; people jumping from the roof because the stair wells and elevators above the 89th floor were gone– no more. Black people, jumping to a certain death; people holding hands jumping; people on fire jumping.
I remember watching the events that day. I never thought, “oh Lord, tell me why those white people must die?”
Ok anonymous coward, I read it. Apparently, there was more evidence of racism that couldn’t fit the short news segment between commercials. When you get a chance, please post the full sermon where he says, “God Damn America” (I thought perhaps it was the same sermon, so just a one-day event, silly me…). In the meantime, you can also go here to see Ambassador Peck defend Hezbollah.
Jim defines…:If you’re unbiased, that means that you trust people when you should trust them
Wow, what a slippery slope. Who determines when you SHOULD trust someone? Unbiased simply means not having a point of view already in your mind to the point that it forces any other opposing opinion away before you get a chance to consider it. Everyone is biased. Your definition above is for gullible, not unbiased.
Anon said: Even if one finds his particular use of words offensive, the thrust of the sermon is the problem with violence.
Yes, I got that, but at the same time, if we’re for healing racial divisions in this country, why do we only mention black people jumping from the towers? I understand the crowd he’s preaching to, sort of like advertising, play to your market, but this was an opportunity to preach solely on the point of Americans dying, but he pointed out blacks. Yes, violence begets violence, but the purpose of our rebuttle to Al Qaeda is to eliminate those who would do us harm, and we have tried mightily to avoid civilian casualties. In that regard, we have done a phenomenal job too. The one point that was missing in the Rev’s sermon is that violence is not relegated to just the physical. Its also in thoughts and writing. So the violence in his words from other sermons should point out that perhaps the cycle of racial hatred will not end with him. And Obama was there for so many sermons, can we be certain that the violence of racial hatred will end with him? I don’t think so. When he loses the nomitnation, I’m interested in who the blame will be cast to, because you KNOW it will be racially based.